On Mark McKinnon's program (Part 2 of 3)

The next four of Mark McKinnon's proposals:

5. Stop the cannibalization. Spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will consume all tax revenues by 2052 at current rates. We are eating our young, spending their earning potential before they are even born. It's time to save the safety nets—for them. On this issue, the Democrats are the party of no (no grasp of reality). But Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) has the right idea: Give the people the same choices Congress enjoys. Protect folks over 55 today from any changes to the commitments made. Give those under 55, as they become eligible, vouchers to purchase private health insurance, just as Congress does. Sicker and poorer enrollees would get larger vouchers. Vouchers put the consumer in charge, forcing providers to compete against each other to deliver care more efficiently rather than lobbying for reimbursement rate increases under Medicare's current single-payer plan. Let workers invest a third of their payroll taxes in their own savings account, guaranteed and managed by Social Security. Raise the retirement age, indexed to average life expectancy. And decrease benefits by 10 percent for everyone under 50.

This is probably a good idea. The idea of giving people vouchers to purchase insurance privately — as opposed to the mandate in "Obamacare" — makes it much more like the Medicare Part D system which I praised in an earlier post. I think I would favor this proposal.

6. Neuter the czars; let the sun shine in. Signing statements, executive orders, and the appointment of czars were once considered a serious threat to congressional power. Obama's pledges of transparency and accountability have expired. Unelected, unchecked, and unaccountable staffers now have the power to regulate our physical and financial health. The most frightening words in the health-care act are "as the Secretary may determine." Whether with nudges to dictate "lifestyle behavior modification," or with not-so-veiled threats of IRS action against private industry, or with guilty-before-proven-innocent charges against an organization of small businesses and private individuals, the ends do not justify the jackboot means. It's time regulate the regulators and let the sun shine in on the executive and legislative branches. Fannie, Freddie and the Fed must come out from behind closed doors. Congress must reform and rebalance the power of the people. And Congress should have a say in any regulation that has a fiscal impact.

Certainly this is a good idea. People objected to "the imperial Presidency" when it was Nixon in charge; Obama is doing far more to interfere with people's rights.

7. Stop teaching our children (the wrong lessons). That we fail our children is our greatest shame. Newark, New Jersey, spends more than twice the national average per pupil but graduates only half its students. Will a $100 million gift from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg improve results? Underfunding is not the reason for underperformance. Nationally, charter schools and voucher programs produce better results with less money. And though real federal spending per public school pupil has more than tripled since the 1960s, achievement scores remain flat and graduation rates are the same as in 1970. Radical education reform is needed. It's time to get the unions out of the classroom. The American Federation of Teachers spent $1 million to defeat D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty for his support of education reformer and school chancellor Michelle Rhee, who resigned Weds. The right ideas are already out there. Hold schools accountable to national standards, but allow problem solvers at the local level to design education solutions that reward performance for students, teachers, parents, and schools.

He is totally right there. I couldn't have said it better.

8. Copy Clinton's conservative moves. To open up new markets and create American jobs, we need to make global bilateral free trade agreements a priority as they were under the Clinton administration. Free trade grows jobs here. President Obama agrees: "Export growth leads to job growth...jobs that pay 15 percent more than average. So at a time when jobs are in short supply, building exports is an imperative." It's the trade deficit, importing more than we export, not free trade itself that kills jobs. The U.S. has a manufactured goods trade surplus with its free trade partners but a trade deficit with countries that have not entered into an agreement. Without agreements, 60 percent of available markets are closed to us. Free trade grows jobs here, and helps improve lives in developing nations—a cause that should be shared by all. But to unleash the powerful potential of free trade, we also need to slash the deficit, which diverts billions in foreign spending to the purchase of American debt rather than American goods. And while we're at it, let's kill farm subsidies.

Though I have no love for Bill Clinton, the specific areas McKinnon points to are right on the money.

The final four points will be discussed in the next post.

On Mark McKinnon's program (Part 1 of 3)

Mark McKinnon's post had a total of twelve proposals. Discussing all of them in one post would be impossibly long to digest. I'm going to divide them into three groups of four, and even so the posts will be quite long. His first point was:

1. Get lobbyists, corporations, unions, and bundlers out of buying federal elections. Give the power back to the voters. In the last two weeks before adjournment, House candidates attended more than 400 fundraisers in the D.C. area. The top 10 heavy hitters, a list that includes trial lawyers and more unions than corporations, have contributed more than $355 million to the two parties from 1989 through mid-September. Forty-eight Super PACs with unlimited giving potential, from the right and the left, have registered with the FEC in the last few months. No wonder 70 percent of voters believe most members of Congress are willing to sell their vote for a campaign contribution. We can start reforming the system by passing the Fair Elections Now Act, and we can radically disrupt the way campaigns are financed through state constitutional conventions. Congress won't reform itself, but the framers anticipated such a problem, giving us Article V to go around Congress.

This was the old McCain-Feingold Act's proposal. The whole reason that the Court found it unconstitutional was that it restricted First Amendment guarantees on freedom of speech. And I really think the court was right there — you just can't sensibly restrict freedom of speech just because some people (and corporations, but they simply act in accordance with whatever the people who control them want) have a lot of money and can buy more advertising. The fact is that money can't buy an election if the candidate isn't what the people want (think of Ross Perot). So this is no worry of mine. (Imagine if one could buy the Presidency, or a Governorship. I'd be happy that Meg Whitman would be unbeatable in California!)

2. Butcher the pork, freeze the fat. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is wrong. We do care about "all those little, tiny, yes, porky amendments." With a deficit of $1.4 trillion, does it make any sense to be spending taxpayer dollars on researching exotic ants in the Indian Ocean? If expanding the government to such gross levels was good for the health of the nation, Europe would be leading the world, not suffering from economic sclerosis. When the government tries to borrow and spend its way to economic growth, the private sector—the job creators—cuts back its investments in anticipation of tax increases. An economy that's hostile to business will go the way of Greece. It's time to focus government spending on only mission-critical services, and not just freeze spending but reduce spending to a fixed percent of GDP. All spending, discretionary and non-discretionary, needs to be on the table. No sacred cows. Not even NASA. (Call me an interplanetary isolationist, but I think we should take care of lives here on Earth before we search for life on other planets.) Follow the model of Secretary of Defense Bob Gates: Reduce overhead costs by eliminating excess and duplication without risking critical force structure. We should permanently ban earmarks. Break up spending bills into individual requests. And restrict emergency spending for real emergencies only.

To a large part I agree. But we need to set priorities, and some of these things may be well worth spending money on. I certainly would not shut down NASA. Government spending on scientific research may well be the only way to get it done. (I say this with a certain prejudice, because most of my working life was done on projects that were government-contracted, so I see more value to such work than McKinnon might!)

3. Call an end to the privileged class. Middle America believes in fair play, an equal opportunity to succeed or to fail. But as seen in the GM bailout, unions are protected from failure with taxpayer dollars. Unions have destroyed the manufacturing sector, forcing jobs overseas by driving labor costs above the price consumers here will pay. Though membership has drastically declined, there are now more union members in the public sector than in the private sector. Eighty-six percent of state- and local-government workers have employer-provided health insurance versus 45 percent of private-sector workers. And unfunded public pensions already threaten to bankrupt California and New York. It's time to get unions out of federal, state, county and municipal government services. And it's time to privatize non-essential government services. According to the Office of Management and Budget, one-third of federal employees have jobs that could be performed by a private contractor. There are probably more. Let's start by privatizing the ever-in-debt postal service, which pays 1,125 employees to sit idly each day at a cost of $50 million annually.

With most of this I agree. Especially what he says about unions, which have made us uncompetitive in the world. The remark about "federal employees [who] have jobs that could be performed by a private contractor" actually resonates with me, as I've had a lot of those private contractor jobs, and I think we worked a lot harder than our Government-employee opposite numbers.

4. Flatten the world (of the IRS). When unabashed capitalist Steve Forbes and former Gov. "Moonbeam" Jerry Brown are comparing notes on a flat tax, it's time to pay attention. Lower tax rates spur economic growth, which generates more government revenue. Both Presidents Kennedy and Reagan recognized this. And under President George W. Bush, get ready for this, the rich actually paid more in taxes—because tax rates were lowered. In 1980, when the top tax rate was 70 percent, the top one percent of earners paid 19 percent of all income taxes. In 2008, with a top tax rate at 35 percent, half the rate of 1980, the top one percent paid 38 percent of all income taxes, double the share of 1980. Today almost half in the country pay no federal income tax; many actually "make a profit" through tax rebates. Taking more taxes from job creators, as will happen if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, creates no sustainable, self-funding jobs. A simplified, lowered, and flat tax will increase revenues and create an all-in approach that would force folks to think more clearly about benefits they will have to help fund. No deductions, credits, or loopholes. Only one exemption setting a taxable income threshold based on family size. A flat tax treats people fairly: Those who make 1,000 times more than the average Joe pay 1,000 times more in taxes. While I'll leave it for economists to pick the right rate for consumers and corporations, if 10 percent is good enough for God, 15 percent ought to be good enough for government work.

This is probably the right way to go, though the excat percentage will have to be determined by how much the money the Government actually needs, and that cannot be worked out until points #2 and #3 have been looked into. The "exemption setting a taxable income threshold" should be set based on the minimum amount needed to live, and thus automatically adjusted annually, based on cost of living, so people who do not make enough to live on don't get taxed out of money they cannot afford to give up. If this is done, I favor the proposal.

These are the first 4 of his 12 points; more to follow.

One man's idea of a centrist position

Through a posting on the "Big Tent Revue" I recently was led to another post by Mark McKinnon. Though I can't agree with all his ideas, he makes some points I consider valid. I will discuss these issues on this blog.

"Anything is RIGHT 'IF' it does NOT hurt anyone anywhere in anyway !"

Yes, the title of this post is not quite correct English, but it is very correct philosophy. I found an article with this title last night, and though the author, whose native language is one of the many spoken in India, has not quite learned English, and although the article is 2½ months old, I really thought that this hits the nail on the head as to why I think "social conservatives" seem so hateful to me. I think this is a pretty good statement of what I have already adopted as one of the principles of this blog.

Two sides to every question?

There was a post on Dennis Sanders' blog, “Big Tent Revue” which quoted my recent post entitled “A Blight on the Republican Party.” I'm glad he liked my post enough to repeat a large part of it, but another person calling himself “Bubbaquimby” posted a response which, among other things, said:

While I agree fighting gay rights is a losing and morally bankrupt position, I wish the Frums of the world would stop throwing pro-lifers under that bus. Abortion and gay marriage are not the same politically. Every year more voters become accepting of gay rights because their is a large generational divide on the issue. This however is not the case with abortion.

The two biggest issues I see the GOP needing of a change are gay rights and immigration. Because they are going to lose in the future if they continue with their views. However I don’t see the need to have two pro-choice parties.

Well, I don't like the terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice” for reasons I've already given, but what is wrong with both parties taking the same side on an issue, if the other side is ridiculous?

Should one party come out in favor of the flat earth theory, just to oppose the other?

The next chapter on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

The Federal judge who ruled against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, has now let the other shoe drop: she has issued an injunction barring its enforcement. And I am certain that the homophobes of this country will gnash their teeth and bewail "judicial activism." But the judge knows what she is doing. This policy certainly interferes with freedom of speech, because any gay serviceman or -woman saying anything that gave away his/her sexual orientation would be expelled, while a straight person doing the same is just fine. What I'm curious about is whether the Obama administration will appeal, as they in theory have the right to do, or will immediately comply, which would be more in conformity with the pro-gay-rights rhetoric that seems to be characteristic of liberal Democrats. (It's interesting, but it took a suit by a Republican group to get this ruling!)

Anti-gay-rights bigots have said repeatedly that they are willing to grant "equal rights," but not "special rights," but this is a bit of a red herring. Suppose that a Christian homophobe was told that, in Saudi Arabia, he had the same right to worship Allah as all Muslims have; he just is barred from offering Christian prayers. Would he consider that to be "equal rights"? (I think not!) Or suppose that he found himself in the pre-1989 Soviet Union, where he had the same right to be an atheist as anyone else? Or, skipping religion, suppose some homophobe were to be told he would be given the right only to marry a same sex person, and this would be the same right that gay people would have?

No, let it be absolutely clear: What they want is the special right: to impose their views of morality on others.

It's bizarre!

Here I am, reading the headlines showing a major Republican year, and I'm sitting in a state that obstinately refuses to go along. The Real Clear Politics poll summary shows the GOP picking up enough seats to move from behind 59-41 to a 50-50 tie, with Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas possibly setting a new record for worst defeat of an incumbent Senator, and yet, Barbara Mikulski is winning polls by a nearly 20 percent margin over Eric Wargotz. It's just bizarre.

What gives in this state? As dissatisfied as the whole country is with President Obama's performance, here the Governor, Martin O'Malley, actually brought him in to campaign for him. This is really curious. O'Malley must be just about the only Democrat that isn't running away from the Obama link as fast as possible.

I feel I've gotten stuck in a bizarre caricature of a body politic.

A blight on the Republican Party?

The Republican Party's candidate for the Governorship of New York State has been sounding off about gay people recently. First, he is quoted as saying "Don't Be 'Brainwashed' Into Thinking Homosexuality Is 'Equally Valid'," apparently to an orthodox Jewish group. Then he tried to backtrack on it, but seems only to have dug in more deeply. Finally, he later tried to claim to be for gay rights, but still could not disavow all he had said. This is a problem for the Republican Party. Because of homophobic candidates like Paladino, the party comes off as homophobic. And I can certainly imagine a gay voter in New York State, who shares Republican values on economic issues and other such things, being driven to vote for the Democrat, Andrew Cuomo, next month, against his feelings on those issues, because Paladino is against the rights that mean so much to such a voter.

The District of Columbia once had a gay Republican Councilman, David Catania. Because of anti-gay remarks by people in the 2004 Bush campaign, Catania left the party and endorsed John Kerry, though he did not become a Democrat formally because he has a Council seat reserved for non-Democrats. I am certain that Catania's endorsement of Kerry was purely because of the gay rights issue, since Catania had obviously good reasons for being a Republican at first.

It is "social conservatives" who are hurting the GOP by being a part of it! By making the GOP appear anti-gay, anti-abortion, and such, they are driving away those who belong in the party because they dislike the "socialism light" that the Democrats favor. The GOP would be better off without them. They are a blight on the party.

Recent polls for 2012

There have been polls among the Republicans seeking to determine their preferences for the 2012 nominee. And though I think one really ought to see what happens in next month's election, I am certainly interested in the results. They seem to put Mitt Romney first and Sarah Palin second, with other names well behind.

Now, of all the names being discussed, I can accept all of them except one: Mike Huckabee. But of the ones being discussed, Romney is my favorite, so I'm pretty happy so far. (I don't like the vacillation on some issues that Romney has shown in the past, so I'm not entirely happy with him. But he is certainly the most qualified, having been a Governor of a major state and a successful businessman, and actually making an Olympics profitable, which is usually impossible! I'd like to know more about two of the also-rans, Mitch Daniels of Indiana and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota; what I've seen about them looks good, but I know too little. Palin is certainly not my first choice, but I don't see in her the idiot the Democrats make her out to be. She's too right-wing for my taste, but not as far to my right as Obama is to my left, so if Palin runs against Obama, she certainly gets my vote.

But what about next month? There are people like Meg Whitman, who are not being discussed so far, but if they win, I think they should be. So I think it is really too premature.

When people's rights collide

One would think that it would be a First Amendment right for a church to picket people they consider to be sinful, involving both freedom of speech and freedom of religion. And even though their message may be bigoted, anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish, and anti-gay, that does not change things. But what if the people being picketed are grieving widows, orphans, and other relatives of a dead soldier, at the funeral which is supposed to give them some little comfort in their grief? Certainly society has an obligation to them to protect them from harassment, doesn't it?

This is the issue that just came before the Supreme Court, as Snyder v. Phelps.

This is a very difficult case. It is clear, from the questions asked by the Justices, that they are likely to rule against the church (which apparently consists entirely of Phelps' relatives). And it is very hard to fault either side. I strongly believe in the First Amendment, but as I have said in the principles that rule this blog: "Freedom of the individual should be as total as possible, limited only by the fact that nobody should be free to cause physical injury to another, or to deprive another person of his freedoms." Now, Phelps has not exactly been causing Snyder physical injury, though the emotional injury has certainly been grave. And it does appear that Phelps has been depriving Snyder of his freedoms in a sense, though the Constitution does not speak of a right to grieve one's dead (unless it's considered, like the right to privacy, a corollary of the Ninth Amendment). So this is very hard for me to call. Both sides have a case.

No matter how the Supreme Court rules, there will be people who will bitterly protest the decision. And no matter which way the decision is, these protestors will have a valid point.

Why three parties can't work here

Sometimes, it's actually one of the two national major parties that looks like it's third. In the 23^rd Congressional District of New York State last year, Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava saw herself as third, and essentially withdrew from the election, giving her support to the Democrat in order to defeat a Conservative candidate she abhorred. Perhaps something similar is happening in Florida currently, though in this case a centrist candidate will be the beneficiary. In fact this looks like a mirror image of the election in Connecticut in 2006. When an extreme left-wing candidate, Ned Lamont, won the Democratic primary in Connecticut, Joe Lieberman ran as an independent (well, really as a third-party candidate, but the "party" was a sham created because of Connecticut's ballot access laws) and won, mostly by getting Republicans to abandon their own candidate, Alan Schlesinger, and vote for him to prevent Lamont from winning.

Now fast-forward to 2010 in Florida. Interchange "left" and "right," and also "Democrat" and "Republican." We have the same picture. An extreme right-wing candidate, Marco Rubio, won the Republican primary in Florida. Charlie Crist chose to run as an independent. So will Democrats abandon Kendrick Meek, their candidate, as Republicans abandoned Schlesinger? There does seem to be a possibility! It hasn't happened yet, but people are talking about it. The post I am linking to speaks of Florida black Democrats; since Meek is himself black, this would be a major surprise, but if they really want to prevent Rubio's election, that's about the only way to do it.

Let us see. But this shows why three-party elections don't work well in plurality electoral systems.

A viable third party? I'd bet against it

Over on the "Big Tent Revue" blog I'm reading yet more about the prospects of a centrist third party. I can't see it happening. The rules of the game just make it imposssible.

First of all, we have "single-member plurality" elections for all offices. It is really well known that this leads to the demise of minor parties. This fact even has a name: Duverger's law. There are countries with SMP that have some viable minor parties, but they are either regional, or they have very few seats despite the number of votes they receive; look at Britain for examples of both. [Regional parties like Plaid Cymru and the Scottish Nationalist Party do reasonably well. But the Liberal Democrats, while getting nearly as many votes as Labour in the last election (23% vs. Labour's 29%), got just enough seats to make it into a coalition, less than 9% of the parliamentary seats.]

But even those 9% of the seats were enough to make a difference, because Britain is a parliamentary country and it required a coalition to form a government. In a presidential system like the US, you don't ever need to form coalitions. So third parties just die. Instead we get coalitions within the parties. Neither the Republican nor the Democratic caucus in either house of Congress is monolithic, and even a Joe Lieberman, defeated in his party's primary, joins the Democratic caucus when he's elected. Similarly, James Buckley, who ran as a Conservative against the Republican in New York in 1970, joined the Republican caucus. That's the way it has to be; the rules of both houses of Congress make them operate as two-party systems as well.

So I just don't see any third party in the near future.

How to Vote in 2010

It's four weeks until Election Day, but because some states have early voting, it may be useful to mention these recommendations this early.

There are thirty-something states with elections for the United States Senate this year. With various degrees of enthusiasm, in all but two I hope that readers of this blog will vote for the Republican candidate, as a rebuff to the Harry Reid leadership if for nothing else. (Hopefully, Reid will himself be retired by this year's vote, but I hardly expect Chuck Schumer's leadership to be any different.) In some cases, such as Sharron Angle in Nevada, Christine O'Donnell in Delaware, and even Eric Wargotz in my own state of Maryland, there is not much enthusiasm on my part, because the Republicans are rather badly flawed, and there could have been better candidates chosen in the primaries, but defeating the Obama/Reid/Pelosi agenda is first on the priorities. In other states, there are candidates about whom I am truly enthusiastic, such as Carly Fiorina in California. But in every case (except two, as I said), the Republican candidate is to be preferred.

The two exceptions are at opposite corners of the country: Florida and Alaska. In both cases there are Republicans who lost their party's nomination, but chose to run as independents, who are better than the official nominees, and who actually stand a chance to win. Unlike the usual situation, where voting for an independent would simply help elect the major-party candidate further from the preferred one, in both states the Democrat is probably going to finish third, behind both the official Republican candidate and the independent. And both Charlie Crist and Lisa Murkowski deserve support. I hope people in those states who like this blog will vote for them.

In the House of Representatives, the situation is somewhat similar. Obviously, in 434 of the 435 districts the name of Nancy Pelosi will not be on the ballot. But in a sense a vote for any Democrat is a vote for her, and helps the Obama/Reid/Pelosi agenda. So, in 434 districts (the one exception will be mentioned in a moment!) I hope the vote of anyone who reads and likes this blog will be cast, when possible, for the Republican. (In some of them, I'm sure, this will not be possible because the Republicans will not have a candidate, but I'm not sure which, or even how many, districts they are.)

Now that one exception: If you happen to live in the Sixth District of Virginia and read this post, I hope you will consider voting for Jeff Vanke, the Modern Whig Party's candidate. Though he is running against a Republican, the more votes Vanke gets, even if he does not win, the more there will be a sign of popular desire for some moderation in the two parties' combative attitudes. I do not expect Vanke to win (though I would not be unhappy if he did!) but I hope he gets a respectable vote total.

There are gubernatorial elections in a lot of states. I don't know much about most of the candidates, but I do heartily endorse Bob Ehrlich in Maryland, who was an excellent Governor when he was in office from 2003 to 2007, and I certainly hope that Californians will elect Meg Whitman. (The difference in terminology is simply because I only "endorse" candidates in elections where I myself can vote.)

I hope that readers of this blog will vote for the candidates I have mentioned favorably in this post.

A message to my readers

I started this blog in 2006, not expecting to make a post a day, but probably one or two a week, but in those days there was no statistics report available, and after a few months I was disappointed at the lack of feedback. For about a year I posted nothing at all, because it was hard to sustain my interest in writing when I wasn't sure anyone was reading what I wrote. I eventually came back to the blog, and actually did more posting than my original one or two a week in the period leading up to the 2008 election (if you look at the log you'll see this), but I never was sure anyone read what I wrote except that one of my posts in March 2008, on, of all things, election methods (a pretty esoteric topic!) got more feedback than anything else. But you'd think that the other posts would have gotten more attention, and I continued to be frustrated at the lack of evidence that anyone was reading this blog. Still, I kept posting, sometimes going a few weeks without a post and sometimes posting more than once in a week. Finally, a couple of months ago, Google introduced stats. I could finally tell I was getting an audience, at least it looked like about 3 people a day (which — then — seemed like a lot!) So I felt more encouraged to post, and I did more. And the audience got bigger — to 8 a day and 10. It was obvious that what I'd read — that you need to post frequently — was true. Lately I've been posting nearly every day, and averaged 50 hits a day in September. Of course, part of that was that just before the primaries I had days with immense numbers of hits, which was in itself a big surprise because I was mostly talking about really local issues, of interest to Marylanders only, or even only to people in Montgomery County! But in the process I picked up some fans — I must thank Neil Cohen for featuring a link to my blog on his campaign pages, which has sent quite a lot of people here, and Dennis Sanders' "Big Tent Revue" which has also been a source for some visitors here.

Currently I'm averaging as many people as I did in September, even though September's average was inflated by those days just before the primary and if those days had been ignored my month average would have been much lower. So I want to thank all of you who have discovered this blog and, obviously, are coming back frequently. It would have been nice to get this traffic before, but I hope I'll be able to hold your interest.

The Political Compass, and other similar self-rating sites

I just took the "political compass" test (again, in fact; as stated below, I've done it before). The result was "Economic Left/Right: 5.38; Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.72" — not too surprising on the first, because I consider myself an economic conservative, but a little surprising on the second front, as I've thought of myself as rather libertarian, and my score is just barely libertarian. It is interesting that the chart they give of world political leaders shows nobody in the lower right-hand quadrant, so compared to the people they rate, I suppose I am rather libertarian.

This is actually the third time I've taken the test; the first time it was (5.62, -1.54), somewhat more libertarian and a tiny bit further to the economic right than my recent score; the second time was actually the other way from my recent score (unfortunately, I never recorded the exact numbers), so this one is pretty close to midway between the two times I took it before.

There's another political quiz I just took called "Politopia" On that one I was not given a numeric score, but I was ranked as a centrist. On their diagram, I was much closer to George W. Bush than John Kerry (I guess they haven't changed their diagram in 6 years!), which surprises me not the slightest, as I strongly preferred Bush over Kerry. And compared to Bush, I was very slightly more pro-free market, but significantly more toward "more personal freedoms," which is exactly as I would expect. So no surprise, though it would be nice to have a numerical score like the one Political Compass gives.

Of course there is the famous "World's Smallest Political Quiz," put out by a libertarian group, which obviously tends to be biased toward libertarianism, and puts me deeply into libertarian territory. I am 80% on their personal issues score and 70% on their economic issues score scale. Since the goal of this test is to show people how much they agree with the libertarian ideal, it does not surprise me that I come out where I do, as I am relatively libertarian though not up to the standards of the party of that name.

Interestingly, I found one quiz that called me a "social liberal" — but their diagram put me almost on the crossing point of "libertarian," "centrist," and "liberal." They gave me a personal freedom score of 73% and an economic freedom score of 46.9%; probably 50% on the latter is where they draw the boundary between "liberal" and "libertarian," which is why it came out where it did. I'm surprised how different my score was on this quiz than the Political Compass. This one uses a diagram very similar to the "World's Smallest Political Quiz," so it's easy to compare them, and the personal freedom scores are pretty similar, but my economic freedom score is quite a lot different on the two.

Unity '08: How *N*O*T* to build a center party!

In the posting on "Big Tent Revue" which I was talking about in my previous post, there was a reference by Rev. Sanders to the movement entitled "Unity '08." I remember that movement: they were going to try to build a ticket for the 2008 election which would take a Presidential candidate from one of the two major parties, and a Vice-Presidential candidate from the other of the two. This would in fact have been a blueprint for disaster. And in fact, we are seeing this happen this year in Massachusetts, where an independent ticket with a Democrat running for Governor and a Republican for Lieutenant Governor just broke up, with the Lieutenant Governorship candidate withdrawing and endorsing the Republican ticket.

The fact is that there is too big a separation between the Democrats and the Republicans who are currently in politics. Just about any Republican, no matter how moderate, is still closer to his fellow Republicans than to the most moderate Democrat. And just about any Democrat, no matter how moderate, is still closer to his fellow Democrats than to the most moderate Republican. (For the Republicans, perhaps I should have said "her" rather than "his": the most moderate Republicans in, say, the United States Senate would be the two Senators from Maine, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, now that Arlen Specter has crossed over to the Democrats.) In fact, this was demonstrated by the fact that Arlen Specter, who had been the most moderate Republican in the Senate, was not accepted by Pennsylvania Democrats as one of their own and went down to defeat in their primary. On the other side, do you think that Ben Nelson, who is probably the most moderate of the Democrats, will ever join the Republicans? I'm very sure not.

Perhaps the only pair of a Republican and a Democrat who might have been able to work together would have been John McCain and Joseph Lieberman, who are such close friends that their differences would have been able to be overcome. (In fact, there are stories that McCain wanted to put Lieberman on his ticket, but the idea was shot down by other Republicans.) But since the Republicans co-opted McCain in 2008, Unity '08 could not put up a McCain-Lieberman ticket.

No, the only way a group like Unity '08 could have put together the type of ticket they wanted to would be to nominate obscure people that nobody would have heard of, and this would not have drawn any votes. The only way that a centrist party could be created in a top-down manner would be for someone akin to Ross Perot, without close ties to either party but with enough money to advertise himself to the people, to be the nominee. And Perot was not interested in party building in his first campaign, while by the second, the bloom was off the rose; people didn't see Perot as presidential material any more. The other alternative, building from the bottom up, is one that the Libertarian Party has had some success with, electing a few state legislators and other local officers. If a centrist party were to go that route, they might have a chance, but I think our electoral system still makes it very difficult for any new party to succeed.

NOTE: Back in 2008, I'd thought that the post I made just after the election would be the last ever with a "2008 election" label. I guess I was wrong!

Why no viable center party?

A few hours ago I was looking at a post on one of the other blogs I like, Dennis Sanders' "Big Tent Revue." This post had to do with the fact that no viable centrist party has been created in the years he's been blogging, though people keep saying it ought to be done. And Rev. Sanders quotes with approval an essay by Malcolm Gladwell in "The New Yorker," making the comparison with the civil rights movement of the 1060s and 1970s, when people were willing to risk their lives for a cause. In that case, the people joining together were often personal friends — Rev. Sanders (and Gladwell) points to the contacts the four students responsible for the sit-in in Greensboro, N. C. had among themselves prior to the sit-in (including the fact that one of them dared the others to do it) as an example. By contrast, contacts people make on Twitter or Facebook are weaker ties. They may be "friends" in quotes, but they really aren't friends.

But while this is part of it — it is not the same kind of commitment to pledge a few cents on Facebook to help people in Darfur as to get together in East Berlin for a rally to bring down the Wall in 1989 — I think one must realize that there is a good reason, having nothing to do with being closer to people you have met face-to-face than "friends" on Facebook. It is this: African-American students in North Carolina in the days of segregation, and East Germans in the 1980s, were really oppressed. Their lives were bad enough that it was worth the risks. Centrists here may be unhappy with the direction of this country; but it isn't really hurting them the way segregation in North Carolina or Communist dictatorship in East Germany was oppressing the people described earlier.

In short, it's a cost-benefit thing. There are still major tasks required to create a viable third party in this country; it's not easy. It may not entail as much risk as sitting in at a lunch counter in Greensboro in the 1970s. But it's still a big project. And what you get is not as valuable — it's not as if centrists are currently as downtrodden as African-Americans in the segregated South.

Yet another point is unity of purpose. The people fighting for civil rights in the South were all looking to accomplish the same thing. "Centrist" here in 2010 America is not a united concept. Mike Huckabee and I might both qualify among Republicans as "less extreme." But Huckabee is frequently "left" where I am "right," and "right" where I am "left." I'm actually in less agreement with Huckabee than I would be with a totally far-right Republican. Centrists are really like the proverbial Jews (I can say this because I am Jewish!): You get two Jews in a room, you'll hear three opinions!

So Rev. Sanders may have, from Gladwell, one reason there is no viable center party; there are other reasons, however, which are important as well.

Am I a Neoconservative?

There used to be only a few labels for different kinds of politics: ones like "conservative," "liberal," and "socialist." But in recent years,they've gotten split up into various subdivisions, like "paleoconservative" and "neoconservative." And I must admit I do not really understand all these subdivisions. The term "neoconservative" has often been used to describe such people as Charles Krauthammer, with whom I frequently agree, so I've often wondered whether I am one. And a day or two ago I was reading a posting on FrumForum, one of the blogs I generally like, called "Barbara Kay to Frum: Come Back to Canada," in which one of the commenters on the post used the same "neoconservative" label to refer to David Frum. In his comment, the person posting it defines what he means by a "neoconservative." Let me quote the commenter precisely:

He’s a neo-conservative, which means, in brief:


1.) foreign adventurism and an essentially unlimited defense budget in the name of “ending evil” or some such grand design;

2.) dramatic increases in government welfare spending, far beyond what even the Clinton and Carter Democratic administrations spent;

3.) an acceptance of European views on climate and energy policy, which is to say, a belief in making energy use far more expensive;

4.) outright liberal social positions on gay marriage, abortion, or any other matter of concern to social conservatives;

5.) a disdain for anything remotely resembling constitutionally limited federal government, a profound ignorance and disdain about the meaning and importance of federalism, and, for that matter, a disdain for even referencing the Constitution in public debate;

6.) a belief that allegedly intelligent “planners” in Washington DC (presumably, especially Mr. Frum) have the mental wherewithal to comprehend how 1/3 of a billion Americans should organize their economic and social arrangements.

Well, if this is what a neoconservative is, I certainly accept part of neoconservative doctrine. Points 1 and 4, especially.

What the poster calls "foreign adventurism" I would rather call protecting us before the enemy hits us at home. We need to recognize that the world does not love us, and although Moscow no longer is a major threat, there remain others who will be. We stayed out of World War II till we were attacked directly on Hawaiian soil at Pearl Harbor; would it not have been better for us to enter before we had that attack?

As to "matter[s] of concern to social conservatives," I must say that "social conservatives," in my belief, are just moralistic bigots who have no business trying to impose their standards on the rest of us. As I state in the header to this blog, I believe that "No person has a right to have his own beliefs on religious, moral, political, or other controversial issues imposed on others who do not share those beliefs." And it is exactly this sort of imposition which "social conservatives" advocate.

The other four points are a different story. But I'm not sure that Frum (or Krauthammer) really holds the views that the commenter charges them with; I certainly do not. So what really is a "neoconservative"? And am I one? That's the problem with labels.

The California elections for Governor and Senator

I just got finished reading this post. I was really heartened seeing the last sentence: "This is a very good sign for Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina." As regular readers of this blog know, I'm something of a fan of both those candidates. Particularly in these hard economic times, Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina are exactly the kind of people we need running our state and Federal governments. So I hope that what the writer of that post saw really foretells what will happen this November.

It's very clear I'd be hard to collaborate with on a blog

After I finished writing my previous post, it occurred to me that there are a number of positions I hold that would make it very hard to find a collaborative blogger. For example, take the very controversial issue of abortion. It seems that most people hold opinions that I would characterize as extreme on one side or the other. But while I would find myself closer to the group that call themselves "pro-choice," I would hardly embrace the NARAL platform. For one thing, I certainly do not hold that the decision should be the woman's, and the woman's only, as some would have it. When the pregnancy is the result of a voluntary act (i. e. not a rape), I feel that both of the people involved have a stake in this decision. If a man engages in a sexual act with his wife intending to have a child, and she later changes her mind, he should have a say in the matter too. And the various "parental notification" bills have some merit, too. If a teenage girl cannot be medicated without parental authorization, she cannot realistically be subject to an even more invasive medical procedure, namely, an abortion.

On the other hand, on gun control, I have probably a more extreme position than anyone I know. Certainly more extreme than anyone who might agree with me on other "liberty" issues. On this issue, I'm certainly not in the center between two opposed views.

It's very clear that my views are very idiosyncratic, and I'd be hard to collaborate with on a blog.

An unusual blogger

There is a blogger named Dennis Sanders who has made a number of posts that I strongly agreed with, and clearly considers himself (as I do myself) an example of this rare species called a "moderate Republican." I wanted to find out more about him, and so, as everyone does these days, I did a Google search on him. It turns out he posts to a number of blogs, many of which seem to be run by teams, and what I found out was extremely interesting. Since this is all public information, I know I'm not revealing any secrets, though I think that many of these descriptive categories, if they applied to me, I would keep secret!

Sanders is black, openly gay, and a minister in a liberal enough church that they accept a black gay pastor with a life-partner in their clergy, the United Church of Christ (the same church to which President Barack Obama belongs!). With all these traits, it is rather surprising that he is a Republican! (Now I'm a Jew who was born in New York City, lives in the suburbs of Washington, D. C. and holds a doctoral degree, so I too could be described as an unlikely Republican!)

It is interesting that he has joined with other people to have his posts on multi-person blogs; I've never done anything like that, and I wonder how I could handle that. A blog usually has its own personality, and its own beliefs. Now although Rev. Sanders and I have a lot of common beliefs, especially that the GOP needs its centrists, there are certainly differences. If he, for example, were to talk about religion, I'm sure there would be little in common. (Though, surprisingly, he serves as a minister for a church of one denomination and has another job working for an organ of a different denomination!) I don't know that any group of people would agree with me closely enough that we could share the same blog. I've directed people to his blog called "Big Tent Revue" and he has to this blog of mine. But that does not mean I endorse everything he says, and I'm sure he does not endorse everything I say. But on a joint blog, though each one has his name on each post he does, I think most people would assume that all the members of the team agree on anything posted there (whether this is true or not!) So I wonder how he does it!

Gun people - How can they be that way?

In a previous post I referred to the blog entitled "The Voice of Reason." When I referenced it, I called attention to the fact that I generally approved of most of the positions I saw expressed there, except that they very conspicuously supported a pro-gun blog called the "Buckeye Firearms Association." Unfortunately, many people with whom I generally agree on many issues take pro-gun positions, and I just cannot understand it. I really cannot understand any reason that anyone who is not a police officer or in the military would have a valid use for a gun; I certainly could not understand a normal person even wanting one. The only use for a gun is to kill, and I doubt that if I had one I could even bear to pull a trigger. Anyone who would have no difficulty pulling a trigger on a gun must, I would think, have no scruples against killing someone — and I wouldn’t want to be anywhere near such a person.

It is absolutely clear to me. Any civilized person could not possibly bring himself to use a gun under any circumstance that I conceive of occurring. I would not be able to do it even in a self-defense situation. So what is up with these "Buckeye Firearms Association" types?

Now the anti-gun-control people point to the Second Amendment, which says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Now, the militia currently means the National Guard, so a proper reading of the Second Amendment would mean that people who join the Guard should exercise "the right … to keep and bear arms." But to that I have seen a response that, in eighteenth-century America (the proper context for reading the Constitution and Bill of Rights), the "militia" constituted the whole adult male population. So even without joining the Guard, they claim to be exercising their part as militiamen. In that case, however, this would mean they must also include their duties as militiamen, not just their rights. The Constitution also includes Article I, Section 8. This states:

1. The Congress shall have power ...

15. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.

16. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States, respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

So if they are part of the militia, they are at the beck and call of the Congress! I wonder if these Second Amendment freaks would also recognize their duties under Article I, Sect. 8, paragraphs 15-16.

Delaware's awful choice

Lately, I have been hunting for other blogs with positions that I (at least mostly) agree with. As I find them, you’ll see them added to the list on the bottom.

One that I generally like is called "The Voice of Reason." (However, on one issue, we will forever be at odds. That blog features links to the "Buckeye Firearms Association," a pro-gun blog that stands for positions which I unequivocally condemn. But this will be covered in another post.) On that blog I was reading an interesting post about Chris Coons, the Democratic candidate for the Senate in the State of Delaware, next door to where I live. It seems that back in 1985, Coons wrote a piece for his college newspaper explaining how he had become a "bearded Marxist." This post was added to by a follow-up, which noted that "People who embrace communism but then truly renounce it generally become passionate rightists. Those who remain leftists usually haven't renounced anything but honesty about their intentions." I know the first of these sentences is true, because I’m familiar with well-known examples such as Whittaker Chambers. And I believe the second sentence is equally true, which implies that the voters of Delaware have a pretty bad choice to make. On the one hand: Christine O’Donnell, something of a weirdo who has weighed in against masturbation and admits to having dabbled in witchcraft; on the other, Chris Coons, who is probably still much more of a left-wing extremist than he lets on.

Certainly, if I lived in Delaware, I’d be pretty unhappy. But as the blog owner of "The Voice of Reason" (who calls himself "Conservatarian") added at the end of the second of those two posts wrote, "Christine O'Donnell may have flaws, but in a race between her and a left-winger, who was an avowed Marxist, I'll take Christine's flaws any time."

Another analogy to laws on Kosher slaughter

Some time ago, I wrote a post on the analogy between people advocating anti-abortion laws and hypothetical laws mandating Kosher slaughter. I just saw a post on another blog making a similar analogy, only with reference to gay marriage. (Actually this is in turn a copy of another blog post.) It's a great post, and I heartily concur.

Actually, I even did make a posting relating to gay marriage and Kosher food. But it's a slightly different point.

A case of déjà vu

This primary reminds me of another one, way back in 1994, so to me it was déjà vu. In that year, just as in this one, I really identified with a particular candidate (in both cases, for the United States Senate). Both lost in a primary. But there are differences.

Ruthann Aron was almost exactly my age, originally from New York City, and in so many ways like me (even if she was female) that I truly identified with her in her candidacy to replace Paul Sarbanes in the Senate. I agreed with her politically as well, and volunteered in her campaign, and it was a heart-breaker to see her lose to Bill Brock, who had been a Senator from Tennessee in the past. But in that case, Brock was a good enough candidate that once the primary was over, I went to work in his campaign. Unfortunately, Sarbanes beat him.

Because I had identified with Ruthann Aron so closely, it really hurt when I heard, a few years later, that she'd been found guilty of trying to kill her husband. Hopefully, that aspect of the 1994 election doesn't have a repeat.

This year, I didn't actually volunteer for the campaign of Neil Cohen, but I strongly identified with him anyway. And I certainly meant it when I formally endorsed him in this blog, and on multiple occasions wrote on his behalf. But, just like Ruthann Aron, my candidate lost in the primary. Unlike Bill Brock, Eric Wargotz, who won the primary, is someone I can only support lukewarmly; there are good things about him, so I certainly will vote for him against Barbara Mikulski, but any candidate who, on the first page of his campaign literature, boasts of being a lifetime member of the NRA is someone I can't be too happy with. As I said, I will vote for him in November, but this may be the last post I will make about Eric Wargotz.

So it's not identical to 1994, but it certainly reminds me of that year.

My take on the Tea Party movement

The Tea Party movement started out, it seems, as the sort of economic conservative movement that this blog would support: "TEA = Taxed Enough Already." But it has morphed into a monster. When it leads to disasters like Christine O'Donnell's defeat of Mike Castle in the Delaware GOP primary for the Senate (giving the seat away to the Democrats) and the somewhat less disastrous (because she still could win!) defeat of Sue Lowden by Sharron Angle in Nevada, the Tea Party movement has gone beyond the bounds of common sense.

In Maryland, we have been more fortunate. Despite Sarah Palin's endorsing Brian Murphy for Governor, common sense (and Bob Ehrlich) have prevailed. But when I look at the candidacies of Angle and O'Donnell, I wonder what is in store. We could have taken over both houses of the Congress and really set the Obama administration back. The House probably still will go GOP in November. But I'm afraid that the Tea Partiers may have given Barack Obama a gift: the Senate.

On Medicare Part D (the prescription drug plan)

On Primary Day last Tuesday, just after I had voted but before I'd left the grounds of the school which was my polling place, I got into a discussion with a Democrat who was performing some election-related function. He mentioned (of course negatively) President George W. Bush, and I came back saying that he was better than our current President. This led to his mentioning some things Bush had done that, apparently, he did not like, and one was the Medicare Part D prescription drug plan. To that I responded, quite truly, "I depend on that; if it hadn't been for Medicare Part D, I wouldn't be able to afford my medications." That surprised him, as typically conservatives (of which I assume he thought I was one, because of my pro-Bush remarks) think this was a bad idea. But since that discussion, I've thought more about Medicare Part D. And I think that, while it has its flaws, it has some very good features.

For one thing, it is the exact opposite of a "single payer" plan. Every year, I have to choose between dozens of plans offered by many different insurance companies, and in fact many of the companies offer a choice of plans, which would cost me different amounts of premium and with different provisions. (Actually, I don't have to choose, but if I don't do anything and just let my current plan continue, this may not be a great choice. Fortunately my County has a group of people [I believe volunteers] who run an organization whose purpose is to help senior citizens choose Medicare options, and they have been very helpful to me.)

The Government has some minimal requirements, but leaves a lot of freedom to the companies to design their plans, so they vary from relatively cheap plans with high co-payments to plans like the one I have (which, for only a bit over $30 a month, fully covers generic drugs with no co-payment).

There are two negatives, and one, the "doughnut hole," where, after a certain amount of drug purchases, you are not covered until you meet a pretty high deductible, was repealed in the Obama health plan, which does seem to be one of the Obama plan's few good points. The one other thing I don't like about the current setup in Part D is that only certain plans are available in certain States; this should have been changed, but I guess there are State laws that make this impossible. (If the Federal Government wants to override State laws, why don't they do it here, where the public is adversely impacted?)

Actually, the Government could do very well by looking at Medicare Part D and applying similar principles to physician and hospital bills.

On the results of Tuesday's primary elections (part 2)

In the District of Columbia, the primary Tuesday will determine the next Mayor, as the Democratic Party never loses there. Even when they ran the druggie, Marion Barry, against a well-regarded Republican council-member, Carol Schwartz, Barry beat Schwartz by a large margin. So one should discuss this primary as if it were a general election.

The new mayor will be Vincent Gray, who beat the incumbent, Adrian Fenty, by a substantial margin. This may be a foreshadowing of Barack Obama's popularity decline, as Fenty was a lot like Obama — a young, biracial man, who came in on a platform of "change." They even both have wives named "Michelle"!

On the results of Tuesday's primary elections

Tuesday's primaries were quite a mixed bag. On the one hand, it seems that Bob Ehrlich won renomination rather easily, with three quarters of the vote. It seems that Maryland voters understood that Sarah Palin's endorsement of his opponent, Brian Murphy, should be discounted because she has little knowledge of Maryland issues. And like the Governorship, the Comptrollership nomination went to this blog's endorsed candidate, William Campbell, who got nearly two thirds of the votes. (Interestingly, 18-year-old Brendan Madigan, whose candidacy impressed me even if I could not endorse him because Campbell was so clearly the best candidate, got a hefty quarter of the vote, so he should be reasonably happy with the results.) But on the other hand, the Senate primary was not so good. If I were a "spin doctor," I could put it in a way that sounded good: there were two candidates that got all the media attention: Eric Wargotz and Jim Rutledge, and of the nine other candidates, our endorsed candidate, Neil Cohen, had one of the two biggest vote totals, coming up to a near tie with the largest one. But that is just spin; the reality is that 6% of the vote is a pretty poor showing, with two other candidates each getting more than five times as many votes. This November, of course, I will vote for Wargotz over Barbara Mikulski, but without much enthusiasm; but I must say that I'm glad that Jim Rutledge did not win.

The race for House of Representatives from this district (Maryland's 8th) was close. But Bruce Stern, who was endorsed by this blog, lost in an extremely close race. The candidate whose signs seemed to be most conspicuous, Bill Thomas, came in last among four candidates. But the winner, Mike Phillips, has to run against Chris Van Hollen in November, a daunting task.

The one position left is that of County Executive. In that election, a candidate who was probably perceived as a joke by many, Daniel Vovak, but had some good ideas in fact and did appear to me to be serious in this election, was running against a candidate who concealed his positions on everything — never put out anything, either in print or on the Web, that I could find, Douglas E. Rosenfeld. To me it was a surprise that Rosenfeld won, with about two thirds of the vote, but I guess that the voters could not take Vovak seriously.

There were primaries next door in Delaware and in the District of Columbia, as well. In Delaware, it seems that Republicans must have had a death wish. I cannot understand them nominating Christine O'Donnell, who has no chance of winning in November, over Mike Castle, who would have been a likely winner in November. But unlike Maryland, in Delaware Sarah Palin's and the "Tea Party" leaders' endorsements counted too much for the GOP's best interests. I'll discuss the District of Columbia vote in another post, because there is a lot I want to say, and this post is getting long.

Health "insurance" isn't really insurance

One of the things that probably causes a lot of difficulty in discussing the whole healthcare business is the fact that people speak of "health insurance." Now, when someone buys fire insurance, one really does not expect that one is going to get paid off out of the insurance; the chance of a real fire is small, so the premium is small. Even for life insurance, while we all expect to die, we probably will not die this year, or even very soon, so the insurance company takes the premium and uses a part of it to cover current liabilities (the people who do die in a given year), but most of it is invested until it's needed.

"Health insurance" is different. Most people will go to the doctor, at least for minor things like checkups, every year. And so every policy pays out something every year. It's really more a prepayment plan than an insurance plan. And if we called it that, it would make our discussioms more relevant to the health care problem.

Are the concepts of "straight" and "gay" meaningful?

There is a lot of discussion, on this and other blogs, and outside the blogosphere, in which we use the words "straight" and "gay" as if it were a meaningful dichotomy. And yet, the more I think about such things, the more it seems to me that the whole concept is meaningless.

Suppose there to be a room full of people, 50% male and 50% female, and you were to test some person by asking him to rate the attractiveness of everyone in the room to him (and, since I have to use some pronoun to describe this person being tested and have already used "him," let us suppose that he were male — if the testee were female, just reverse the roles of the genders in what follows!). If the testee were to rate as attractive to him all of the females and none of the males, he'd certainly be classified as "straight." But so would he be if he were to rate as attractive to him any fraction at all of the females as long as there were none of the males, by our definition. (And this would be more realistic, since I cannot imagine anyone being attracted to every female in a large enough group.) We can also, by the same method, define what it would be for the testee to be "gay" — just reverse the terms "males" and "females" in the previous two sentences.

How, though, would you classify somone who would you classify someone who would select as attractive 60% of the females and 40% of the males? Certainly bisexual, but would you need to add "more straight than gay"? I think so, if you want to be accurate. And then, we would still have a problem distinguishing this person from someone who would select as attractive 70% of the females and 30% of the males (and, for that matter, these percentages do not have to add to 100% — we could find someone who would select as attractive 70% of the females and 60% of the males, couldn't we?) Similarly, we could find bisexuals who were more gay than straight, and even those who were relatively balanced.

Now I suspect that it would be next to impossible to test anyone in this way and get an honest answer. Our society has decided to treat straight attractions as different from gay ones. So a self-described "straight" person would feel a subtle pressure not to include any of the same-gender people in those he reported as "attractive." And a self-described "gay" person would feel a subtle pressure not to include any of the opposite-gender ones! Yet I suspect that nearly all people, no matter how they describe themselves, would, if they were totally honest, be somewhat bisexual, and neither the percentage of males nor that of females would be precisely zero for most testees if they were truly honest.

For any person we might choose to test, there are traits that one might consider physically atractive, or even erotic. But they are not the same even for people who might self-identify in the same "straight"/"gay" category. Gay men may go for "bears" (hairy guys) or "twinks" (relatively hairless ones). Some straight men might find a woman to be a turn-off if she's taller than they are — but my father married a woman considerably taller than himself! Of course, some of the traits that attract a person might be "conventionally masculine" and others "conventionally feminine." But just because one is attracted to people with a particular "masculine" attribute does not make one gay (if one is male). And of course, someone might like some things that are considered "conventionally masculine" and others "conventionally feminine."

What I am driving at is that the terms "straight" and "gay" are not really meaningful. There may be a person who identifies as "gay" who has no need for gay marriage to be legalized, because he has found one woman he loves enough to overcome those percentages. And some anti-gay activists have trumpeted successes in "converting" gay people who probably were never 100% gay to begin with. There are men who, because of their religious background, insist that they are not gay, and even may be reasonably happy dating women, until they meet one man who really turns them on. (Might this account for Ken Mehlman "discovering" he was gay at age 43?) It would really make more sense to consider everyone as bisexual to some extent — where both of those percentages in the test I described could be anywhere from 0 to 100%! And if someone finds, and falls in love with, someone, and wants to establish the kind of relationship that has traditionally been described as a "marriage" with that person, why should the law care whether they are of the same or opposite genders?

And what is the reason that people "defending traditional marriage" have any problem there? How does the fact that John wants to marry Jim, or Mary wants to marry Ann, make it any more difficult for Ed and Joan to have a "traditional" marriage?

Count one FOR Pres. Obama

As I said at the time of his election, I will write in favor of actions by Pres. Barack Obama when I think he did something right. And in the case of Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America, I think Pres. Obama did.

Now, there are "conservative" organizations that are up in arms about it. The
Heritage Foundation put out a posting by Hans von Spakovsky, with such comments as "One would have to go back to the 1919 World Series to find a Chicagoan throwing a game so flagrantly. The court noted that the Obama Justice Department 'called no witnesses, put on no affirmative case, and only entered into evidence the legislative history of the Act.'" In other words, Von Spakovsky would have wanted the Justice Department to put on a serious defense of a law that Pres. Obama himself thought was wrong!

Yes, the Obama Administration "threw the game." But this was a game that deserved to be thrown. Gay servicemen deserved equal rights; I was surprised to see that the case was decided on First and Fifth Amendment grounds rather than some others — but then the Fifth Amendment actually makes sense, as it has been used as a basis for applying the Fourteenth Amendment's equality provisions, aimed at the States, to Federal laws.

Note that President Obama has taken an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution." Also, at least until the Supreme Court decides otherwise, each President has to decide just exactly what the Constitution says on a particular issue. Just because President Clinton and the Congress felt that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was constitutional, if President Obama felt it was not, he was in fact bound by his oath of office to decline to defend the act. And it is certainly possible that someone like President Obama may have felt that it was unconstitutional — after all, a Federal judge has just stated that she felt that it was unconstitutional!

The Heritage Foundation describes itself as "a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense." I suppose their anti-homosexuality comes under the rubric of "traditional American values." But it seems to me that an organization whose principles include "limited government" and "individual freedom" ought not take such a stand. This is the problem I have with many self-styled "conservatives." When "free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, and a strong national defense." have to be set against "traditional American values," I go with the first group. And the Heritage Foundation, in contrast, is going with the last.

Big Tent Revue

I just discovered a blog called "Big Tent Revue," which defines itself as "A blog about the center right in American politics and how it can become more inclusive and forward thinking." This looks like it is in the same part of the spectrum as my own thinking, and I discovered it because they did a nice post recently on Neil Cohen, the candidate this blog has endorsed for the U. S. Senate.

They are a new blog, just started the end of last month, and seem to have a team, rather than a single person, contributing posts. The posts I like all seem to be by Dennis Sanders, so he may be the one I would like to publicize. In another post he mentioned this blog, apparently with approval. I owe them the same treatment. Please take a look at the blog at this link.

The "conservative lesbian" - so conservative it trumps her lesbianism, and anti-free-speech as well?

Cynthia Yockey blogs under the name "A Conservative Lesbian." And it is, on the one hand, a good thing to have people of other-than-straight identities demonstrating that they don't have to be left-wing politically. But she is letting her right-wing politics go beyond her self-interest, even, backing the extreme homophobe, Jim Rutledge, for the U. S. Senate seat currently held by Barbara Mikulski.

On August 2, she made a post strongly backing Rutledge. I give her the benefit of the doubt: at that time she might not have seen Rutledge's anti-homosexual rants on his website. On September 6, I posted a comment on her blog, in which I expressed surprise that a self-declared lesbian would back a vicious homophobe. Her response was to deny that Rutledge was anti-gay and say that "his opponent, Eric Wargotz" was the anti-gay one. (As is usual, she assumes that nobody but those two are serious candidates.) When I pointed out that I didn't much care for Wargotz either, but that I had seen Rutledge's website both before and after he had removed the words in question, she refused to accept my comments, essentially accusing me of lying or misremembering what I saw, and ultimately deleted my responses to her arguments — the response of someone who cannot make a logically-sound argument but just doesn't want the other side to be heard. (Please look at my earlier post, too.)

I have never deleted a comment that simply disagreed with my positions — the only things I have deleted were spam advertisements — but have instead given my side. Cynthia, apparently, knew my arguments were too powerful to refute, so simply deleted my comments.

When I first posted my comment on Cynthia's blog about Jim Rutledge's homophobia, she could have responded in two reasonable ways: she could have said "I didn't know about this; I'm withdrawing my endorsement of Rutledge!" or she could have said "I will have to continue to support him because of his stands on other issues," as I myself did with regard to Bob Ehrlich despite his positions on some transportation issues. But her response — challenging my honesty — is unacceptable.

One person who was not at all surprised by my catching Rutledge in a sudden change of position was Neil Cohen. When he read my September 8 post, he sent me an e-mail message, which included this paragraph:

I was reading your blog today and I have to tell you that you bring up a significant point about changing the web page. Jim changed his policy on oil drilling after the BP incident so I decided to shoot some screen shots of his pages. Sorry to tell you that part of his free speech page I didn't copy.

So anyone out there who have been thinking of voting for Rutledge, please be aware of his weasel-like nature.

Terry Jones' Quran-burning

There is a Protestant pastor in Florida named Terry Jones, who has announced plans to do a bonfire burning Quran books to commemorate Sept. 11. I wonder how he would react to someone holding a similar commemoration of the Spanish Inquisition by burning New Testaments. It's really about the same thing.

This blog talked about the plans to build a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero a few days ago. And what I said about that — they certainly have a right under the First Amendment to do so, but in view of the offense it would give to many people, it's in terribly bad taste — applies here as well.

Jones may dislike some of the ideas of Islam, but its adherents have just as much right as those of his own Christian religion to practice it. And there are those of us who find Christianity just as distasteful as he finds Islam. Yet, though it might be a legally permitted exercise of First Amendment rights to conduct a public burning of New Testaments, I think that it would certainly be a bad idea. And his proposal is just as bad.

Let's dump these one-word descriptions of political philosophies

There are a lot of people who call themselves conservatives or liberals, but it's clear that these one-word descriptions don't tell us enough about what someone stands for. In a blue state like Maryland, I'd probably be called a conservative by most people, but some positions of the "conservative" candidates, like the proclaimed (but subsequently removed from his site!) opposition to homosexual rights on Jim Rutledge's site are quite opposed to everything I stand for.

Most of us are "conservative" on some issues, and "liberal" on others. Even Barry Goldwater, the vanguard of the "conservative" movement in this country, was pro-gay-rights, (just see this article, for example) just to name one issue where most 2010 "conservatives" reject Goldwater's position.

This false consistency has led to people who call themselves "social conservatives" thinking it's a betrayal when people like Theodore Olson defend gay rights in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case, though there is really no inconsistency in Olson's thought. A true disciple of Barry Goldwater would be on Olson's side there!

And it's why some people may be surprised to see blogs like "A Conservative Lesbian." But on the other hand, Cynthia Yockey (the owner of that blog) feels it necessary, to bolster her "conservative credentials," to back a vicious homophobe like Jim Rutledge, to the point of denying his hostility toward gay people (and apparently not believing I can remember what I read on Rutledge's site)!

We really need to discuss what people believe on specific issues, and not rely on one-word descriptions. (I have taken that approach in my "About Me" statement for this blog!)

Has Jim Rutledge changed his spots?

Until the last week in August I knew very little about the candidates who were running in next week's Maryland primary election. I knew that Bob Ehrlich was running to regain his old spot as Governor, and I knew his opponent's name was Brian Murphy, because Sarah Palin had conspicuously endorsed Murphy's candidacy. But I knew nothing at all about any of the other races on the ballot. Specifically, I did not know who was running for anything but Governor; I had seen some extremely large banners promoting Eric Wargotz for Senate, but didn't even know whether he was a Republican or a Democrat. And I think I'd seen an online ad accompanying a Google search with the name of Jim Rutledge, but knew no more than his name.

So I spent a lot of time searching out the information. As it happened, once I found out the names of the Senate candidates (the first office I decided to research), just about the first site I looked at was Rutledge's. His site had a number of hyperlinks taking up the issues in several categories; one of those was "freedom of speech." Since I've a very big interest in First Amendment issues, I went to that one first. And most of that section was devoted to a charge that people promoting the "homosexual agenda" were preventing him from being heard on the other side. I must say that the idea that this was the biggest freedom of speech issue in his estimation truly appalled me, and I recalled very little else about Rutledge after that.

A few days ago, I was looking at some blogs and I noticed that the "Conservative Lesbian" blog is supporting Rutledge, which struck me as very weird, given that he was such a vicious homophobe. So I decided to post a comment on her blog, expressing surprise that a self-identified lesbian would support someone like that. And for the purpose of directing her to the proof that he was so bad, I went to look at Rutledge's site in order to get the exact URL for the page where he made his homophobic rant about their interference with his freedom of speech. I could not find it. I guess that since he knew that the "Conservative Lesbian" blog is supporting him, he decided that he could not put his finger in her eye?

Surely Rutledge hasn't suddenly changed his mind about gay people in the middle of an election campaign, has he?

The Conservative Lesbian claims that Rutledge has not changed his site and says in her response to me that it is Eric Wargotz who used to be publicly homophobic in his campaign and has now changed his site to emphasize his economic conservatism. Perhaps so, as far as Wargotz is concerned — but as to Rutledge, I saw the anti-homosexual rant with my own eyes before I made my August 31 posting. Groucho Marx once said, "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" (I first thought it was Mark Twain; sorry for the need to correct it!) Sorry, Cynthia, if you want to support Rutledge, it is certainly your right to do so, but don't try to tell me he isn't one of the most bigoted homophobes to have ever put out a Website. [She claims, apparently, that Rutledge can not be a homophobe because he has an openly gay (but economically conservative) brother who is supporting him. That doesn't cut much ice with me. Rutledge's brother may be discounting the homophobia because he loves his brother, and agrees with his economic conservatism. I happen to have a very good friend who is gay, but a practicing Roman Catholic. He has no problem, even though the Church condemns him, because he truly believes in Catholic doctrine (and one of his first lovers was a priest!)]

One thing that bothers me about the Conservative Lesbian's response is her refusal to admit that I saw what I did. Obviously, there was no reason for me to do a screen capture at the time, as I was just researching these candidates for my own decision on who to support. I had no idea I was going to run across a self-declared lesbian actually supporting Rutledge! But her response to my comment simply floors me — apparently because I can't show her a screen capture, she doesn't believe I saw what I saw!

All I can imagine is, she is so committed to Rutledge that she can't believe he is that much of a homophobe.

An unendorsed candidate who still impresses me

As the title says, this posting is about a candidate who was not endorsed by me, but who is, I think, very impressive: Brendan Madigan. I doubt that he will win the nomination for State Comptroller, and even if he does, I am certain he would not be able to beat Peter Franchot in November (though if he does win the nomination, I will vote for him in November!), but I think he has done a creditable job of mounting a professional campaign. If I had not discovered it when I saw a YouTube video of an interview he did for Maryland Public Television, it would be hard to believe that this campaign was being run by an eighteen-year-old. He has done a very professional job.

When I was growing up, one had to be twenty-one to vote. Lowering the voting age to eighteen was a cause I had favored, but by the time it came about, I was already too old to benefit from the change, having reached my twenty-eighth birthday. But I had formed my political opinions pretty completely by an even younger age (around 14). So I am certainly willing to believe that young people are capable of reasoned political thought. But I'm sure I would not have been able to organize a candidacy for statewide office at eighteen. Madigan has done an excellent job in this regard. And I want to compliment him on this.